James Brolin as Ronald Reagan and Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan in the now
aborted CBS mini-series "The Reagans"

I recently watched a television special celebrating CBS's 75th anniversary.
This is the same network that most recently raised conservatives' ire with
its planned miniseries "The Reagans," (since cancelled) which if
described accurately by published reports will be an unfavorable and largely
fictitious account of Ronald and Nancy Reagan's public life. The celebratory
program brought back memories of some classic television series, reminding
me that CBS once had a lot more to offer than shows smearing a 92-year-old
man incapacitated by Alzheimer's disease and thus unable to defend himself.

Of course, any prolonged discussion of President Reagan reminds me that
the Republican Party once seemed to have a lot more to offer than the thin
gruel provided by so many of its leading pols today. By and large, the GOP
has not heeded Reagan's advice that it should hoist a banner of bold colors
rather than pale pastels in communicating its message and defending core
principles.

The Republican National Committee entered the fray over "The Reagans." RNC
Chairman Ed Gillespie sent CBS President Leslie Moonves a letter requesting
that the miniseries be subjected to historical review or explicitly labeled
as fiction. I'm glad the institutional GOP took a strong stand on this, as
it is important to correct the record regarding Reagan's presidency. Aspects
of his record continue to have relevance to contemporary policy debates over
tax cuts, peace through strength and countless other issues. But I can't
help but wonder why the RNC can't generate as much press coverage for its
efforts to see President George W. Bush's qualified conservative judicial
nominees confirmed or the party's platform of lower taxes and less government
more generally.

Worse, there are many Republicans actively opposed to central tenets of
the GOP platform who are instead advocating agendas that could fairly be
described as anti-Reagan. Alabama voters recently rejected a $1.2 billion
tax increase their Republican Gov. Robert Riley attempted to inflict upon
them. Nevada's Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn has taken his own state's legislature
to court to force it to raise taxes. New York City's Republican Mayor Michael
Bloomberg signed legislation late last year to increase property taxes by
18.5 percent (his original proposal would have boosted them by 25 percent).
Reagan's fiscal conservatism is sometimes idealized – even he signed
some misguided "deficit-reduction" tax increases as president – but
the policy emphasis of these Republicans is difficult to square with the
convictions of our 40th president, a net tax cutter.

If this is what the GOP's farm team looks like, what does this portend for
the party's future, as well as that of serious economic conservatism? Are
there any Reagan-like standouts who may reclaim the party's legacy of limited
taxation and government?

As it happens, there are. Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is one to
watch. During nearly a decade of service in statewide office (he served as
state treasurer before twice being elected to his current position) he has
been a passionate and eloquent proponent of conservative principles. Most
recently, he has led a drive to repeal a sales tax increase signed by Ohio's
Republican Gov. Bob Taft via an initiative process, potentially a tax revolt
in the tradition of California's Proposition 13. Blackwell's stated goal
is to "bring fiscal discipline back to Ohio." He further summarizes
his position on his website (http://www.kenblackwell.com): "My philosophy
is simple: when our state loses 118,000 jobs in a year we should not be increasing
spending several times the rate of inflation and we should not be raising
taxes record amounts."

How have GOP leaders responded to Blackwell's call for the party to repudiate
its support of this tax hike and live up to its stated principles? Ramesh
Ponnuru has reported on National Review Online that instead of supporting
him, they are displeased: "The Ohio Republican establishment has made
it unmistakably clear over the years that it has little tolerance for Ken
Blackwell or his boat-rocking conservatism. The party establishment's hostility
to the secretary of state is even higher now that he is campaigning for a
referendum to repeal the Republican governor's tax increase."

Despite facing dissent within the GOP ranks, Blackwell is not an anomaly.
Other Republicans have remained true to their low-tax, small-government,
free-market principles. Another outstanding example is Colorado Gov. Bill
Owens, who received one of only two A's awarded by the Cato Institute the
last time it graded the governors' fiscal policy performance (the other went
to Florida's Jeb Bush). Owens has the good fortune to be running the state
in the context of a law that limits the growth of state spending to population
growth plus inflation. This helped him avoid the unsustainable spending binges
that many other states were tempted into going on by the late 1990s boom.

Yet Owens managed to improve upon this situation still further by cutting
taxes on income, capital gains, interest and business property to the tune
of nearly $1 billion. He applied his line-item veto ruthlessly to cut spending
from the state budget. He also has exercised leadership nationally. When
other governors, many of them Republicans, were colluding to tax the Internet,
he opposed them. If a President Owens could repeat this performance as president – admittedly
a tall order in the absence of similar institutional spending restraints
at the federal level – he would actually improve upon Reagan's fiscal
record.

There are in fact many Republicans at the grassroots who demonstrate this
kind of commitment to principle. The party would be immeasurably improved
by some of its most committed activists assuming leadership positions and
winning public office. It is important to defend Reagan and his policies
from malicious misrepresentations. But what TV shows say about him is less
important than what he stood for. As he said in his farewell presidential
address from the Oval Office in 1989, he was not just a Great Communicator;
he was someone who communicated great things.

Let us defend both with vigor with the knowledge that the truth will ultimately
prevail.